sw1mushfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Customs and Courtesies
I have a few problems with the comments here. "However, junior officers should generally listen to suggestions from senior NCOs, and NCOs should decide when it's proper to break the law and ignore their officers." *NCOs will NEVER be deciding to break the law if given a lawful order by a superior officer. I put emphasis on a lawful order, for if it is not then you are not breaking the law. "The LT can give orders to the Platoon Sergeant and the Staff Sergeant, but not the First Sergeant." *The LT can give orders to the first sergeant, and he must follow them if they are lawful. Lawful orders given by an officer to an enlisted man still must be complied with. However, it is not normally done and is considered 'bad form'. If there are any problems with this, let me know. -- Nasa eagle 04:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC) ---- I agree. The article seems a bit out of place. There seems to be a reoccurring scenario where people seem to bring almost too much RL military-style doctrine into the Star Wars universe. That wasn't Lucas's goal at all, which is why what we see in the Star Wars movies is so dramatically different from what we see in movies like Aliens. In one sense I can appreciate and enjoy the depth of realism that is being attempted here, but on the other hand, I'd argue that most of the playerbase isn't that interested. A lot of this just confuses me at first, and if it confuses me at first, it's going to confuse a lot of people permanently. I'd rather adopt a much more SIMPLIFIED way of doing things, rather than going this route, so I'm slapping a dispute notice up and will talk with Vengan about it in-game. There are elements of this that could remain useful, but I'd argue that they are better off in a coded system in game, such as SWINFO or NRINFO, and if they are on the wiki, they should be made a blurb in the relevant articles, such as StarOps. -- SW1 Kyle 12:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Talked with Ven about this today, and we'll be shifting the purpose of this page over to a temporary whiteboard so we can work out what we want to say and reduce confusing aspects, and then we'll move the info onto an NRINFO article as a permanent home. --Wrista 00:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC) :-Articles like this concern me because it's the latest rendition of a pattern of behaviour. I have to proffer this question — what is the motive or purpose behind the creation of these articles? As a writer, I'm all for creative writing and progressing the story. But, what keeps transpiring are: #Articles out of style with the rest of the wiki #Articles in an irregular voice / tense #Article titles in grossly ambiguous, general terms, with little to no relevance or correlation to purpose #Articles without categorization #Articles orphaned upon creation (not back- or forward-linked to any other article) #Articles created, but not maintained, or left with any indication that they're in need of review or are being worked on #Article content that is questionable, in terms of canon integrity, canon relativity, or MUSH relevance or admin approval : Items 1 and 8 concern me the most. As a wiki admin, I'm not so much an enforcer as I am a janitor — I (and others) have to clean up stuff and make sure it fits into the wiki as a whole. Items 2-7, those things are minor, and everyone will miss on them every so often. But Item 1 should occur only once... and if I look at what the original contributor/creator of this article has done in the past, there's a distinct pattern. Then, Item 8 really concerns me because it would seem that the contributor in question is doing these postings under his own agenda, without consideration of the rest of the organization, the storyline, the wiki, or the genre as a whole. I'm not a killjoy, and I'm not here to smother creativity; however, I can't sit here and condone this pattern of conduct. -- Hawke / Rtufo 00:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC) ::- Here, here. -- SW1 Kyle 02:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC) ::- Aye. -- Nasa eagle 04:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC) *After reading through the article and the talk page, I'm going to delete this page within the next several days unless it's fixed up, redesigned, and complies with policy and stuff. --Danik Kreldin 02:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)